Mincing Upper East Siders for DiPietro

Western New York’s most hilarious Assemblyman, the dry cleaner-turned Fredo-turned Obamaphobe tea party Assemblyman David DiPietro, is going to be holding a fundraiser in the wilds of East Aurora, and there’ll be a gun raffle, to boot.

Donald Trump and wife Melania Trump

Upper East Side man with Consort, Mincing in Tuxedo

Because nothing says “re-elect my homophobic Assemblyman” more than the ability to fondle a long, hard shaft.  To touch it; caress it and wonder what sort of explosive wonders it might be capable of.  There will also be chicken and booze. Possibly a 50/50, and an exponentially increased risk of catastrophic injury.

When the Buffalo News asked DiPietro to comment, he mouth-shat:

I know this fundraiser raises a few Upper East Side eyebrows, but I represent rural Western New York. Here, we don’t mince around in tuxedos. We hunt and fish so why not? We didn’t know when we came up with the idea but this turns out to be a really fun event

So, playbook. It’s rural “real America” versus the pointy-headed tuxedoed wealthy on the Upper East Side. Urban liberals. Jews. Blacks. You know – other. No word yet on whether there will be any Freudian therapists on hand to assist what will likely be predominately white male attendees with their palpable subconscious castration anxiety.

Let’s backtrack for just a second and recall that DiPietro spent about a month massaging Trump’s prostate recruiting Donald Trump to run for Governor. Donald Trump – a rich blowhard who wears tuxedoes and lives on New York’s Upper East Side.  Trump is a notorious tack merchant who has yet to prove that he is not the offspring of an Orangutan.

But this whole sportsman meme that DiPietro has concocted for himself is somewhat enchanting.  Go to his campaign webpage and the only issue to which he’s devoted more than just a picture caption is guns. Gun rights, gun raffle, gun this, gun that. Everything else is given less than a complete sentence.

The reason, of course, is that as a Republican member of the Assembly, DiPietro is paid about $80,000 in state money, plus a pension if he makes it 10 years in the system, sweet benefits,  a $9,000 stipend as “ranking member of the small business committee”, a staff, and a travel per diem, to do nothing except pontificate about guns. Because of Albany’s antidemocratic structural dysfunction, DiPietro’s presence in Albany is reduced to that of loudmouthed seatcover.

(But you’ll never, ever see all those Republicans who rail against public sector employees and their unions bitch and moan about worthless GOP Assembly members making 100 large per year to drive to Albany and park their cars. Now ask your Republican Assemblysitter whether they’ve done anything to, e.g., promote the reforms set forth a decade ago by NYU’s Brennan Center. Then tell me what the crickets sound like.)

David DiPietro is an Italian-American dry cleaner from the tony Buffalo suburb of East Aurora – home to the Roycrofters and Fisher-Price. He’s not some outdoorsman hero who gets to pretend like he’s any more or less a real American than anyone else.

Even tuxedo-mincing Upper East Side alleged-billionaire elitist Donald Trump.

45 comments

  • DiPietro Is East Aurora …in a NUT-shell……

  • BlackRockLifer

    I’ll repeat my comment from the Buffalo News. Can you say “pander”? DiPietro is the Tom Baurele of the assembly, a one trick pony clinging to guns in a pathetic attempt to appear relevant.

  • For a blogger that trashes republicans so much, it’s pretty ironic that you live in Clarence of all places.

    • Ironic!

    • I don’t believe he ever said there’s anything wrong with having money. You wouldn’t be buying into a stereotype, now would you?

      • Are you referring to Alan? He most definitely brings up having money as an issue. He brought up how Kathy Weppners 6 figure family income and boat showed how she is out of touch of the people she may represent if elected. I’m pretty sure it was him. I’m waiting for Alan to bring that same fact up about Mrs Altman’s 6 figure salary.

        • Elaine Altman earned $102,000. That’s a distinctly middle-class salary. Dr. Weppner earns at least 3 times that, and Kathy hasn’t disclosed it.

          Unless you’re saying that a $300,000 salary is the same as $100,000 because it’s “6 figures”. I don’t get your point.

          • Alan,

            Elaine Altman earns much more than $102,000.

            Remember we do not want to mislead the readers. Can we agree on that at least?

            Seethroughny.org only displays base salary. It doesn’t include what Elaine Altman is paid in health care cost and benefit cost. We’ll add a low number of another $25,000 on top of the $102,000. Now we are up to just under $130,000.

            Is there a Mr. Altman Alan? You pulled Dr. Weppner into the mix so by rights I guess we should add his income as well. Wouldn’t you agree? Alan do you happen to know what Mr. Altman does for a living?

            We could add in what Mr. Altman earns on top of that seeing you used what Dr. Weppner earns to use it against Mrs. Weppner.

            —————————————-
            http://www.financialsamurai.com

            “Standard Definition: $25,000-$100,000 a year is what
            most would consider as a middle class income.”
            ————————————–
            http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/20/by-the-numbers-the-incredibly-shrinking-american-middle-class/

            The income range to be considered middle class:$25,500 – $76,500
            —————————————-

            Well Alan is looks like Mrs. Altman is distinctly not middle-class.

            By your logic.

            If Kathy was out of touch of the people she may represent based on income it looks like Mrs. Altman will be in the same boat. Or as you said “Yacht”

          • We’re talking about take-home pay. Not benefit costs. Nice try, though.

            As for Elaine Altman’s marital status, it took me about 5 clicks to find out what it is.

            But in any event, she’s not basing her campaign on class warfare, so she hasn’t brought her income into the picture, so it’s irrelevant.

          • If income was irrelevant you would not have brought it up about other candidates. Compensation is compensation. Nice try though. So far she is only basing her campaign on slogans nothing more.

          • No shit. It’s only August, and so is Astorino, but you’re backing him. Income is relevant when candidates make it part of their platform to do help the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

          • I’m not saying the republicans never play the class warfare card but you know the democratic party wrote the book on that practice. We’ll see if she expands her campaign slogans to actual reasons why someone would vote for her. You wouldn’t want to promote someone that only caters to low information voters would you?

    • Only a moron would choose where he lives based on party affiliation.

      • What’s wrong with people wanting to surround themselves with likeminded people. I don’t think anything is wrong with that. I know liberals who grew up in Utah and moved to NY because they wanted a more liberal culture. Makes sense to me.

        • Why should I move where I live just because I happen to be in the minority politically? Seems not only moronic, but a cop-out. A surrender.

          • “Some argue the justification clause should be read as a condition on
            the operative clause: The right to keep and bear arms is protected only when it contributes to a well-regulated militia, or only when
            the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
            State. Thus, one commentator says, because “the Framers included a
            preamble to the Second Amendment . . . [i]t is at least arguable that
            the only ‘gun rights’ protected by the Second Amendment are those that
            in fact support ‘the security of a free State´ — and that might mean
            none at all.” 27
            Again, this seems inconsistent with the text, which
            contains no “only when” clause. What’s more, the text itself suggests
            that the operative clause is sometimes broader and sometimes narrower
            than its justification. The underinclusiveness of the operative clause
            is uncontroversial: The government is entitled to act in ways that
            are at odds with the Amendment’s justification, so long as it doesn’t
            deprive the people of the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has no
            obligation, for instance, to properly train the militia, or to demand
            that it be armed. 28 Congress may even take steps that might
            undercut the value of a well-regulated militia to the security of a free state, for instance by creating a standing army.Some argue the justification clause should be read as a condition on
            the operative clause: The right to keep and bear arms is protected only when it contributes to a well-regulated militia, or only when
            the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
            State. Thus, one commentator says, because “the Framers included a
            preamble to the Second Amendment . . . [i]t is at least arguable that
            the only ‘gun rights’ protected by the Second Amendment are those that
            in fact support ‘the security of a free State´ — and that might mean
            none at all.” 27
            Again, this seems inconsistent with the text, which
            contains no “only when” clause. What’s more, the text itself suggests
            that the operative clause is sometimes broader and sometimes narrower
            than its justification. The underinclusiveness of the operative clause
            is uncontroversial: The government is entitled to act in ways that
            are at odds with the Amendment’s justification, so long as it doesn’t
            deprive the people of the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has no
            obligation, for instance, to properly train the militia, or to demand
            that it be armed. 28 Congress may even take steps that might
            undercut the value of a well-regulated militia to the security of a free state, for instance by creating a standing army.”

            http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

  • Scott Whitmire

    You really do have some odd ideas about gun owners, BP. Perhaps if you came out and hung out with some of us you might alter your view a bit.

    • I’ve read this post half a dozen times now, and I’m not seeing any blanket statements about “gun owners”. I see lots of taking of a single person — DiPietro — to task, mainly for his insistence on using guns as the single biggest issue to run on.

      • Clearly you’re not looking very hard. This piece is as much about gun owners as it is about DiPietro.

        • No, it’s really not. There’s much more of a statement about “gun owners” in the way many are projecting onto this piece than anything in the piece itself. Alan’s talking about the way DiPietro is cynically pandering to a certain group, and pretty much ONLY that group. If that group is YOUR group and you’re enjoying the pandering, well, that’s your issue, but it’s not the one Alan is writing about.

          • No. I get the idea of calling out DePietro for pandering. But it’s not projection – the text itself is also clear in its contempt for the very group DePietro is pandering to. If you don’t see that, then clearly that’s your issue.

      • Scott Whitmire

        “No word yet on whether there will be any Freudian therapists on hand to
        assist what will likely be predominately white male attendees with their
        palpable subconscious castration anxiety.”

  • Wow, demagoguing someone for supporting the 2nd Amendment. And, in the same breath branding Republicans as worthless. This sounds like a variation of Cuomo’s “…they have no place in the state of New York”.

    • No, just underlining how absurd all the attention to, and fixation on, guns is.

      Let’s be honest: They’re not so much gun rights supporters as they are gun fetishists.

      • When an a priori right, acknowledged by the Bill of Rights, comes under attack, I would hope the response is significant.

        • Who is attacking the right to gun ownership? The right can be left alone for a minute. A gun raffle is hilarious and completely mockable. Making gun rights the sole issue about which you concern yourself is hilarious and mockable. Demeaning upper east siders after courting perhaps the most prominent upper east sider to run for governor is hilarious and mockable. The right to gun ownership, just like the right to free speech, does not shield one from criticism when one acts a fool.

        • It’s not an a priori right, and wishing won’t make it so.

        • The 2nd amendment is NOT under attack. Although it’s not surprising that the same hypersensitive, afraid-of-their-own-shadow crowd that feels the need to carry a loaded weapon at all times, also feels “under attack” over this. They’re ALWAYS under attack.

    • The Church of Bill Hicks, LDS.

      Tragically, discussing someone’s demeaning use of the word “mincing” is not in fact, demagoguing.

    • No hes criticizing him and his ilk for their bastardizing of the second amendment to suit their purpose…..

  • robrobrobislike

    While he might pander to rural WNY, dude actually represents new money McMansion WNY.

  • Hey Alan, pretty rich, you calling EA “tony”. One suspects you haven’t left the dirty ghettos of Clarence for a ride down this way in a while.

  • waiting for the constitutionalists to start screaming about Oklahoma Death Row Inmate Lockett’s 8th amendment rights against his cruel and unusual punishment.

  • Clearly, dry cleaners are inferior human beings. At the very least, they deserve to be mocked by attorney-pundits.

  • As a former Holland resident, I would not refer to East Aurora as “rural”.

Leave a Reply